Ministers stand by McSweeney as donations controversy shadows Starmer
Leaked counsel email questions how Labour Together donations were reported; opposition calls for investigation as McSweeney is defended by government officials
Ministers are rallying around Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister’s chief of staff, as fresh questions emerge about undeclared donations that funded Labour Together, the Labour-aligned think tank. A lawyer’s email, published by Conservative allies, advised McSweeney to drop a claim that the donations totaling about £739,492 did not need to be declared and to instead present the issue as an administrative error. The note also warned that failing to substantiate the claim could provoke action from the Electoral Commission, which was already examining the matter. The revelations come as Labour faces scrutiny over what Keir Starmer knew about the funding and how it was disclosed during his leadership bid and early tenure as leader.
Pat McFadden, the Work and Pensions secretary, dismissed the idea that McSweeney would quit, telling Sky News he had confidence in his chief of staff and that political opponents would “use every weapon” to attack him. McFadden noted that the Electoral Commission had reviewed similar issues years earlier and had acted then, a point often cited by the government to temper questions about accountability and leadership.
Conservative frontbenchers seized on the email’s contents, with Kevin Hollinrake, the party chairman, arguing that McSweeney had been “caught red-handed” in concealing hundreds of thousands of pounds that supported Starmer’s ascent. Hollinrake called for urgent investigations by both the Electoral Commission and the police, signaling that the controversy could widen into a criminal inquiry. He also suggested that Prime Ministerial aides were complicit in a broader pattern of concerns about integrity at the heart of Downing Street.
The allegations intensify questions about McSweeney’s influence over Labour’s strategy and leadership decisions. The notes portray him as the architect of several controversial moves, including suggestions that his team provided substantial polling data and political advice to Starmer as early as 2019, before Labour’s 2019 defeat. The government has pointed out that Downing Street would not comment on the specifics of McSweeney’s past roles, while Starmer’s office has emphasised that the Labour leader has full confidence in his chief of staff.
Beyond the email, the timeline stretches back to Labour Together’s fundraising reporting in 2017–2020. In September 2021, the Electoral Commission found more than 20 breaches of donation reporting by Labour Together and fined the think tank £14,250. The commission had previously advised in 2017 that donations should be declared within 30 days, yet dozens of donations to Labour Together were not disclosed until after McSweeney had left the group in 2020. The new material appears to contradict Labour Together’s public stance that undeclared donations resulted from human error and administrative oversight, rather than a deliberate failure to report.
The newly leaked advice from solicitor Gerald Shamash, who described himself as the Labour Party’s solicitor, argues that there is “no easy way to explain” how Labour Together found itself in the situation and urges McSweeney to show evidence of any earlier EC guidance that donations did not require declaration. Shamash cautions that the absence of such records makes a defense difficult and suggests that Labour Together may still be forced to frame the non-reporting as administrative error if no contemporaneous evidence can be produced. He notes that the Electoral Commission has a record of calls with Labour Together, but not with McSweeney, and outlines the potential political and legal ramifications of the disputed guidance.
The Electoral Commission said it had “thoroughly investigated” the late reporting in 2021 and that offences were determined and sanctioned accordingly. While the commission’s actions provide some procedural closure, the leaked email and related claims have kept the topic in the public eye, fueling allegations of a broader pattern of influence-peddling and opacity around donations that flowed to Labour-related groups during Starmer’s rise. The opposition has pressed for a formal police inquiry to determine whether the donations breached criminal law or purely electoral regulatory rules, while Labour has faced renewed questions about transparency and oversight within its internal fundraising network.
As the political storyline unfolds, senior government officials emphasise McSweeney’s professional standing and minimize the likelihood of his resignation, arguing that leadership continuity is vital for presenting a stable government image. Critics, however, argue that the disclosures undermine public trust in how ruling parties handle large, politically connected donations and raise broader questions about governance and accountability at the heart of the administration. The case continues to develop, with parliamentary and regulatory authorities expected to face continued scrutiny as new details emerge and the timeline of events is examined in greater depth.